Posted on 03/03/2016 11:05:05 AM PST by elhombrelibre
Trump has trashed free speech, religious liberty, property rights, and limits on executive power.
Here's a question for you to puzzle over. Can you name the single most unconstitutional thing Donald Trump has proposed or endorsed so far in the 2016 presidential race?
Not an easy question to answer, is it? Do you start with Trump's efforts to suppress immigration by gutting the 14th Amendment? Or do you perhaps point to Trump's long war on the Fifth Amendment and its protections for property rights, as exemplified by Trump's embrace of boundless eminent domain powers for the government and Trump's own shameful record of seeking to personally profit when government officials seize homes and businesses and then hand the bulldozed land over to crony capitalist real estate developers?
Either of the above could serve as an answer to my opening question. But when it comes to Trump's unconstitutional agenda, there are plenty of other noxious options to choose from.
What about Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States? That stance manages to offend multiple constitutional principles in a single bound, including such bedrock concepts as religious liberty, due process, and equal protection.
Speaking of religious liberty, there is also Trump's belief that the government should have the power to close mosques. Needless to say, the First Amendment plainly forbids the government from taking the truly authoritarian step of shuttering houses of worship, be they mosques, churches, synagogues, or temples.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
<
And the hits just keep on coming. I have not seen this.much outrage since obabmas imperial rule.... Oh wait.....
I dislike mr trump for many reasons.
But the Reason peices is not very accurate.
First there is NO constitutional right or privilege to any citizen or subject of a foreign nation to immigrate or even visit that is up the the American people as expressed by Congress.
Second the freedom of religon does not cover the right to sedition nor treason
So as those that may misunderstand me, trump has threatens the free press by wanting to “liberalize” libel laws to allow the rich and powerful to silence those that would speak against them with Law-Fare (that he threatens almost as matter of course)
His nearly constant contradictory statements make me wonder if his idea of the truth is much the same as b.clinton as anything he says may or may not be “operative” as he sees fit when he sees fit.
Damon Root is the enemy of free speech. Look in the mirror, Buddy.
Maybe constitutional bumbler might be a better picture. He’s not coming at this thing with theory, but with what he believes to be utterly practical.
FOR WHATEVER IT IS WORTH HOWEVER, I haven’t seen Trump keep on doubling down on the more constitutionally dubious things (like horning into state law with Federal). Maybe his advisors are like, er Donald, we’d better not go down that road, how about letting it die?
A pro immigration rant?
How “conservative” of you.
He just says whatever is in his mind at the moment without trying to connect it to something he's said before or had been told in the past.
Does that count?
How many of us here would have ever guessed that it was constitutional to require citizens to engage in a specific form of commerce or suffer a federal penalty before John Roberts availed us of his judicial wisdom?
What about Trump’s call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States?
Sounds good to me, constitution or not!
BTW what is exactly left of the constitution outside of the 2nd amendment?
Oh sure, NOW they care about the Constitution.
Give me a break. These jack wagons have let Obama run roughshod over it for over 7 years. And now they suddenly care about it.
To be honest, Trump hasn’t even said exactly what he wants to do to “liberalize the libel laws” but from a practical point of view it looks like if there was a cause for it, he’s been the object of that cause.
Yes, this could narrow down the 1st Amendment, but on the other hand, if we are really concerned about any Amendment we won’t force it as an excuse to do really antisocial things either. (”Hard cases make bad law.”)
If I was being Machiavellian about this I might push for a law against “Vexatious Libel” in the vein of “Vexatious Litigation.” Kind of RICO-izing libel. Which would be a crimp on the 1st Amendment. But it might be hard to resist doing.
All article regarding Trump or Cruz are posted for information only. You may not like the content, but you will survive......
What is the ratio of how many times Trump speaks of the Constitution compared to times he mentions how great he is?
Scalia was using the case as an illustration, and there’s no immediate likelihood that Times v. Sullivan will be overturned. But the justice’s comments serve as a reminder that the protections afforded by that decision are not engraved on a monument — and America’s news media can’t afford to take them for granted.
Neve thought Conservatives were against Judge Scalia?
You’re assuming a knowledge base that is equivalent of that of the average freeper.
I see two main situations here, either (1) bumbles (he really doesn’t know — his proposal to punish killings of the police with a uniform death penalty is of this kind) or (2) new proposal (he’s still trying to home in on a solution that hasn’t been finalized yet — his healthcare ideas are one prominent example).
Trump memory is not sheerly stateless. How could he possibly run a business that way? He’s already said he views politics as wide open. This is like making a proposal to create a business that doesn’t even exist yet.
Both Cruz and Rubio pass muster as natural born citizens under the Constitution.
Peace,
SR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.